RAMJI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Excise Inspector, has filed this writ petition to impugn his reversion and also to make a claim for his promotion on the ground that the juniors to him have been so promoted whereas his claim has been ignored. Having been appointed as a Clerk on 7.2.1973, he was given a deemed date as 27.11.1971 by granting him benefit of Military service. The petitioner was later promoted as Assistant and as Excise Inspector on 27.10.1986. The promotion of the petitioner as Excise Inspector was on adhoc basis for a period of six months and was purely temporary. This was to continue till suitable direct recruits became available. In January, 1988, a criminal case was registered against some of the officials of Excise department, which included the petitioner. FIR No.15 dated 28.1.1988 was registered against the petitioner under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 CPC with the allegation that he had accepted bribe. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 29.4.1988. He, however, was granted anticipatory bail in the criminal case registered against him and subsequently he was reinstated on 8.10.1988 without prejudice to out come of the Departmental action. Later the petitioner was reverted on 4.5.1988 with retrospective from 26.3.1988. While reverting the petitioner, the juniors to the petitioner who had also been promoted like him on adhoc basis were retained as Excise Inspector. The petitioner has mentioned the names of those persons as Surender Sharma, Krishan Kumar Sharma and Shri Krishan Lal Ghandi. Some of the juniors were also promoted subsequently on adhoc basis as disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. In October, 1988, such juniors were also promoted as Excise Inspector on regular basis and the promotion order in this regard is annexed with the petition as Annexure P - 4. The petitioner has filed the various representations against the same. His grievance is that his claim for promotion was required to be considered and he was ignored only on the ground that the departmental action was under contemplation. By relying upon the instructions issued, the petitioner would contend that he could have been denied promotion only if memo of charge or charge sheet has been served to the petitioner and prior to that date he was entitled to be considered for promotion. Similarly, the petitioner would urge that he could not have been ignored for promotion merely on account of registration of criminal case. In any case, the petitioner would contend that this criminal case was withdrawn subsequently and communication in this regard has been placed on record as Annexure P-10.

(2.) In this background, the petitioner has challenged his reversion while his juniors were retained and has prayed for consideration of his case for promotion from the date his juniors were so considered and promoted. The counsel would urge that merely because a case was registered against him, the petitioner could have been reverted and further he could not have been denied promotion when his juniors were regularly promoted as no charge or memo of charges were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has placed reliance on instructions issued in this regard. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure P - 8. It is provided in this instruction that a person could be denied promotion if memo of charge is served to him or charge sheet is framed against him for a criminal offence.

(3.) Respondents have made an attempt to justify the reversion as well as the denial of promotion of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the promotion which was granted to the petitioner was purely temporary and was for six months and against the quota meant for direct recruits and there was a condition in the promotion order itself that this promotion was till some suitable direct recruits became available or for six months whichever was earlier. By referring to this condition, the order reverting the petitioner is justified on the ground that the petitioner was accused of accepting bribe while working as Inspector. Not only the petitioner was accused of criminal offences alleged against him but departmental proceedings were also directed against him as can be seen from the reply. The copy of the charge sheet issued to the petitioner has been annexed with the reply as Annexure R - 5. There is specific allegation contained in the petition that he had accepted bribe on 10.7.1987, 9.12.1987. The reasons for which the criminal charge was dropped against the petitioner are also contained in Annexure P - 10 produced by the petitioner. This is a communication from Superintendent of Police, CID from the office of Chief Minister, Flying Squad. It is noticed in this, that after recording statements of witnesses the record was seized by the police. It is also stated that the charges levelled against the above said excise officials are proved. It is thereafter noticed that as per the information from secret sources, the above officials have taken affidavits from the liquor contractors and due to this reason the case has become weak. Taking this into consideration, it is recorded that it is not a fit case for prosecution. The Investigating Officer, however, has suggested to take disciplinary action against the official under Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1987.